Sebastien Loisel wrote:
> Dear Raymond,
>> Thank you for your email.
>>> I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
>> that were held for PEP 225:
>>http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/>>>> That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
>> bring it back to life.
>> This is a much better PEP than the one I had found, and would solve
> all of the numpy problems. The PEP is very well thought-out.
A very interesting read! I wouldn't support some of the more exotic
elements tacked on to the end (particularly the replacement of the now
thoroughly entrenched bitwise operators), but the basic idea of
providing ~op variants of several operators seems fairly sound. I'd be
somewhat inclined to add ~not, ~and and ~or to the list even though
that would pretty much force the semantics to be elementwise for the ~
variants (since the standard not, and and or are always objectwise and
without PEP 335 there's no way for an object to change that).
Cheers,
Nick.